|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Use of Science to Support Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
No im not gullible. Ive only been a christian since this yr,Besides that i was an athiest and believed in evolution. So its more that i balanced both and came to a conclusion rather than just being brought up in creation and never even considering the evidence for another. I didnt become a christian from blind faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I believe you chose Christianty, but it's obvious that you did not consider the evidence for evolution. You are far too ignorant of the evidence, and far too accepting of the obvious lies that you have passed on about evolution, for that to be possible.
Sad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
almeyda
It seems like the hopeless task of explaining how one ancestor organism could arise from dead matter triples in difficulty. Indeed it is difficult in the extreme but we are a young race who have only spent the last century or so in a dedicated scientific pursuit of knowledge.It may very well be that the actual mechanism by which things began their climb will never be known. If so well too bad for us. However there is a possible way in which wecan explain these things and it goes back to a lecture given by a man named Richard Feynman. In this lecture he discusses water and how it is made up of two elements {Hydrogen and Oxygen} and in this combination {which is repeated over and over always the same} we have the properties of water Ice,snowflakes,steam,the sounds it produces as you pour it into a container,the weak solvent ability that allows for so many reactions,all of this and literally hundreds more all inherent in two elements which if you were to be a stranger to water you would not be able to see that such was possible from the combination of the two.Now what if the elements were not repeated over and over but changed constantly throughout How much more is possible? The actual words here are the general idea behind the leature. The full thing can be found in a book called Six Easy Pieces by Richard Feynman.But the idea is this.All of chemistry is a result of elements sharing forces and producing new more complex properties and science has the understanding of how those forces interact at their most fundemental to produce all the phenomena we see in biology.So all the things that atoms do can be shown to produce all the things that we do. This is a bold statement but as we go along things that were previously unexplained are being found to now have a rational explanation. So now we discover the pattern behind the thing we call "life." However because we are still in the process of unfolding what were previously secrets of nature we are finding that we are calling the question of what "life" is into question. It is bias on the part of we humans that we consider ourselves as "living" when,in fact,we are simply a higher level of complexity on the road of evolution.It is not "dead matter" that we are dealing with.How the mechanisms work to allow us to do the things we do is unknown but is subject to investigation by science.That we do not know is no problem for scientiosts since doubt is what allows us to question and learn what the facts tell us. As for this addendum.
P.S - gjrjk"b"mdjj"r"majdnjdj"t""e"kh"o"akegf"n"nv"n"nmhbmamgkakjghkkmbfmsk
{Added some blank spaces to break the text into seperate lines, to restore page width to normal. Sidenote: Is such as the above really needed? - Adminnemooseus}pep"o"kgha,lslkfkfaeij"o"taeanalug"r"ughvngerh"t"rwjhtj"t"kylkymklkjs jlmkjkukuiljyu"o"efafmek"t""e""b"klslmv;v bnkjlai"o" --- Must they be in order? Because i did reach the letters but i dont think in order They must be in order yes and I have gone over it and found that you got as far as tobeornot.The purpose of this is to show how with just one rule imposed on the random background order ensues.At this rate the works of Shakespeare are rapidly produced.With the imposition of natural selection evolution life can rapidly {rapid being long stretches of time from our perspective} produce new and varied combinations.If it is possible for this to produce greater complexity upon biological matter at our level how much of a stretch is it to have it happen to produce something of far less complexity {i.e. The first cellular organisms} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-10-2004 12:14 AM "We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually, you got most of the phrase in order.
gjrjkbmdjjrmajdnjdjTekhOakegfnnvnnmhBmamgkakjghk
{Added some spaces to break the above into seperate lines, to restore page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus}kmbfmskpEpOkgha,lslkfkfaeijoaeanalugRughvN gerhtrwjhtjtkylkymklkjsjlmkjkukuiljyuOefafmekTebklslmv; v bnkjlaio But that still is not how Evolution works exactly. Imagine millions of folk typing at random, just as you were. But then there is natural selection working. It is a copiest that walks around the room looking over everyones' shoulder. It does none of the typing, has nothing to do with what's typed, but does take those phrases that work and discard those that don't. So you produced "To be or Not" just that quickly. Given one day you would have certainly completed the whole sentence. Natural selection is similar to the copiest. Random changes that help something survive and reproduce are kept. Those that do not help are either archived (a copy of what you typed kept to see what else you wrote of worth) or discarded (the individual dies and doesn't reproduce). This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-10-2004 12:16 AM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
You might like to read this regarding a Christian perspective of Radiometric dating methods:
http://EvC Forum: Radioisotope dating links and information -->EvC Forum: Radioisotope dating links and information
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
I understand this scientific pursuit for truth. Its very good in theory and does make sense. But the fact that there was nothing. Is a major problem. Everything about natural selection,transition,evolution,millions of yrs etc. All this is well and good. But at the beginning there was nothing. How did the nothing become something?. Every theory i hear involved something already there such as a soup,organism,densed state of heat,matter..Where did all these things arise from?. And if theres a theory to how then how did that come to being?. This is what i find difficult with evolutionary theory. It can become very apparent that intelligence may be needed in the form of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
How did the nothing become something?. Every theory i hear involved something already there such as a soup,organism,densed state of heat,matter..Where did all these things arise from? Your practice of looking at nothing but creationist web sites is showing. It is possible that the entire Universe is just a quantum fluctuation. The energy content of the Universe is known to be near zero, and could be exactly zero; if it is, then a quantum fluctuation of any duration is possible. There are other hypotheses, such as the one presented in Scientific American this month (The Time Befroe Time), based on string theory ... and I confess I don't understand it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away" - Luke 21:33
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Let's see if we can wander back towards the topic.
The Topic is "Use of Science to support Creationism". Instead of posting stuff that has NO meaning in the thread like Luke 21:33, maybe we can narrow things down. You keep saying that the Earth is 6000 years old. How could Science validate or invalidate that assertion? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
AiG has plenty of real scientific evidence for a young earth. Unfortunately this conflicts with evolutions interpretation of the facts. So none of you will listen to what they say. The good news is its real science and real facts being based on the only God who was there when it happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That did not asnwer the question.
Frankly, AIG is embarassing and as a Christian you should be very wary of them. But that will come later in your growth. So back to you, what Science would show the Earth was 6000 years old? What Science would show the Earth was older then 6000 years? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobAliceEve Member (Idle past 5394 days) Posts: 107 From: Seattle, WA, USA Joined: |
I am working to enlist people here who "accept tToE as the best possible explanation of all the evidence" to walk with me through what I see as points of impossiblity, Denesha.
Each of my points we are able to jointly disprove I will not bother the forums with again. Those which remain I will continue to work with here. Very best wishes,BAE P.S. thanks to mark24 and Sidelined who also posted. I learn a little each time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
AiG has plenty of real scientific evidence for a young earth. Unfortunately this conflicts with evolutions interpretation of the facts. So none of you will listen to what they say. Typical creationjsit whine. You don't have the evidence, but you want to make your silly claims and have an lame excuse for not supporting your claims. It doesn't fly. Post your evidecne or abandon your claims. From an excellent post on the subject on another message board:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Unseul Inactive Member |
I've talked to a few physicists and apparently although string theory does a nice job of explaining things, the number of degrees of freedom it has is so ludicrous it could be used to explain just about anything.
Although im like you, ive attempted to read the basic first coupla papers on string theory and it just left me confused. Unseul Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
AiG has plenty of real scientific evidence for a young earth. Uh, what JonF said up there. Take the bit of "real" evidence that you like best. Post it in the appropriate thread (in Dates and Dating) I assume. And watch what happens. We have been referred to AIG an number of times. Some individuals here are almost certainly more knowledgable about what they say than you are. No one has yet found anything there that can stand up to any scrutiny. Show me what you've got.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024